Larry, you are perfectly justified to jump in with your trench knife and combat boots if someone calls you an intolerant bigot when you're trying your best to be the very opposite of that. And I'll even stand beside you.

But you may have missed the point I was trying to make above. I was pointing out that E' is anything but a 'snotgrammer.' He's been around here too long to warrant that label, don't you think? You apparently don't like being called either intolerant or a bigot. Do you think E' would appreciate being called a coward and snotgrammer? By stooping to such name-calling, aren't you guilty of the very thing you are preaching against?

You also seem to have misread some other things I have written here. I will do my best to clarify. I was not giving you *my* view of recent events. And, just so that can sink in, here it is again:

I was not giving you *my* view of recent events.

And if you look back over the language, you'll see I was careful to point out that I was attempting to show what I believe to be E's and Mary Anne's perceptions and opinions. Their opinions and perceptions are not necessarily my own.

Whether I agree with how they've seen things or not makes very little difference to me. E' is a good man and did what he believed was the honorable thing. He certainly doesn't deserve the label 'coward' or 'snotgrammer' or the description 'slinking away.' Mary Anne is also a decent person and doesn't deserve to be blasted for having views that differ from those held by the majority here.

So now I will quote back to you the material of mine you quoted:

'E' is very willing to defend ideas, but he thinks it should be done in the context of civilization and that ideas should really be the point instead of agendas.'

In other words, E' felt some people were no longer behaving in a civilized manner.

I didn't say I felt that way. If I truly felt that were the character of Habitable Zone, I wouldn't post here either. Because I do agree with E's essential premise: There's no point hanging around barbarians.

You have made a bogus assumption about me based, I presume, on a quick reading of what I wrote and your own sense of outrage. So please read it again. It is just as arrogant for someone to call you uncivilized as it is for you to accuse me of having called you uncivilized. I haven't.

Further, you were not the subject of those remarks. The subjects are those who offended E' and Mary Anne.

Beyond that, you continue to miss the basic point. I was not labeling anyone's ideas as civilized or uncivilized. I was discussing behavior. You don't care for the term 'bigot,' and I don't think Mary Anne - or E' -cared for some of the language directed at Mary Anne. That has nothing to do with ideas, as I have said repeatedly. It's about civility. People can disagree respectfully.

Finally, I again recommend you read over what I've written on this thread so far. I've made an effort at almost every turn to state that I am giving my impression of Mary Anne's and E's perceptions of recent events.

This means I am *not* saying whether Mary Anne's views are more rational than anyone else's, or that her views are my views. And it means you are making a false assumption about my own views when you claim I take the rationality of her views as a matter of faith. I don't.

Just one example: Liberals in education. I have children in school right now. About half of their teachers are conservatives and some have been praising Bush since before the election. It seems clear to me that Mary Anne's general premise - conservatives' distrust of 'the system' drives them en masse to the private sector - is wrong here. Or, at least, where she has taken her premise is wrong. Perhaps engineering and science professionals prefer the private sector because more money can be made there. But what about conservatives who have chosen to pursue history, english, sociology or political science? Some of these people may find themselves in media or politics, but a great many will find a natural home waiting for them in education.

This isn't about views being rational or not. This is about the people who hold them. Some people in this world accept perfectly rational ideas because those ideas help support a perfectly irrational agenda. It's not the ideas, it's what people try to do with them, how they try to twist them into justifications for their personal politics.

Bin Laden, for example, claims to be for peace and justice. What rational or civilized person could argue with peace and justice? But when he twists those ideas to his own uses, perverts them in the name of his cause, then it must be asked: What rational or civilized person could possibly agree with this man?

Nothing you could have written here could garner more respect from me than these comments about Mary Anne:

'She was an articulate poster who did make many good points. Many of us grew to respect her despite disagreeing with her on many issues. Too bad she doesn't see fit to present an alternative view. I don't recall anyone making a personal attack against her and wouldn't support them if they did.'

Once again, yes, I come from somewhere to the left of this board. I see myself as a moderate, but for all I know the conservatives here see me as from the far left. Yet I do not agree with everything Mary Anne has said, I've disagreed with E' in the past, and I do not see eye to eye with Splinx.

I've tried very hard to make these posts about something other than me. I have tried to present what I believe E' and Mary Anne feel they have experienced. I am not making a judgment - that is for each person to do here for him- or herself. I am telling you what I think they feel happened.

And I think they feel the real issue with some posters here was no longer ideas, but agendas. And that those agendas are too much a matter of faith for any skirmish fought on 'the battlefield of ideas' to have any meaning. They felt that in a couple of cases they were dealing with zealots no more willing to renounce their articles of faith than the Islamic fundamentalists in the Arab world.

They were not, in their opinions, fleeing a battle of ideas, because - in their opinions - some people were no longer arguing from ideas but simply from agendas.

As far as I know, you yourself are not among those so bound to his agenda that he couldn't see past his nose. Now I will speak for myself, instead of trying to speak for Mary Anne and E'. My own opinion is that you can see well past your nose and your ideology. You seem to recognize the limits of the conservative agenda, as well as some of its flaws. As a conservative, of course, you must also accept them. But at least you recognize them and therefore avoid being a hypocrite.

That is not an insult, by the way. That should be taken as recognition of a virtue you seem to possess.